Personal Question From Good Samaritan

[PairTheBoard]

I vote because it makes me feel good. I enjoy the process when it's fairly convienient. We have a polling place right in my apartment complex. If it got too inconvienient I would probably just say f-it though.

PairTheBoard

[pete fabrizio]

I vote because it's my duty.

[mak15]

David,

Do you think this post will cause some posters to not vote? If so, do you think that means you should now vote? Possbily, specifically because the posters in this forum will tend to agree with your political views more so than the general public.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's an approximate cost benefit analysis. You aren't saying that your vote is meaningless, you're saying that its value is low enough that it isn't worth doing. There's a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't David's (and others) failure to vote really a free rider problem?

Presumably, David believes a democratic system where citizens are allowed to vote is better than a totalitarian system where citizens are not allowed to vote.

Thus, he enjoys the benefits of living in a democratic system; however, he and other free riders are not willing to incur that participatory system's costs, such as inconvenience of voting, time spent examining the issues, etc.

So, how to ensure that all of those who enjoy the benefits of a democratic system also share in its costs. For things like taxes and jury duty, it's fairly simple -- laws require one to share in those costs. Though it's been proposed, I don't think most people would go along with legally requiring people to vote. So what about lowering the costs? As David mentioned, he would e-vote if given the option.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
...But it's still a math problem for me. Weigh that against my inconvenience and the degree I care about the outcome...

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

You are a man with a few admirable qualities. But, taken as a whole, I was wrong to have thought so highly of you.

[West]

Do you think that the margin of victory in an election can be meaningful or important?

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
"Would you make the argument: it doesn't matter if I pollute with my car because everyone else will or won't?

If you think there's fault with the specific form of the example the concept should still be clear."

For that example to be even close to being analagous, you would have to stipulate that my vote would pick the side that is best for everybody. I don't think you are ready to concede that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're leaving out something important here.

Who you vote for might not be the best for everyone, just as whether you pollute with your car does not make a big difference. However, the outcome is very bad if everyone pollutes, as it is very bad if nobody votes. If only a few hundred people vote, some very very bad things could happen.

I think the point is, deciding to vote *at all*, regardless of whether who you vote for turns out to be the best for everyone, is analogous to deciding not to pollute, because both prevent a very bad outcome if everyone were to make the same decision.

I guess I'm sort of posing it this way: it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's the decision to vote itself that prevents the very bad outcome. Just as it doesn't matter what kind of hybrid car you buy, it's the fact that you're reducing pollution that matters.

I know I have a point, but I don't think I've expressed it clearly [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Do you think this post will cause some posters to not vote? If so, do you think that means you should now vote? Possbily, specifically because the posters in this forum will tend to agree with your political views more so than the general public.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question that you meant to ask is whether my possibly causing others not to vote is a reason not to have put up my original post. I considered it but rejected the idea. And I am glad I did. Because the main reason for these forums is not so much to come to conclusions but more so to help people think clearly and to formulate good arguments. And as I suspected, many are criticizing my failure to vote with bad arguments (eg the policeman fireman one). Which is unacceptable. Even if their conclusion is correct.

Here is a thought. Assuming the goal is to have the winner of an election be the one that the majority truely wants. Which would be more accurate, our present system or a random drawing of 5% of the population or 1000 people, whichever is greater, that are forced to vote. The second obviously. That saves a lot of time and inconvenience with only a tiny loss of accuracy. Its a math problem.

BUT. And I mean a BIG BUT. Most people would agree that there are many issues that are more relevant to some people than others. And that if everybody voted the result might not really reflect the strength of desire of the country. Because of a slight majority of uninterested or uninformed opinions. Not voting on that issue is actually a service to this country. In fact, though it doesn't apply to me, most people shouldn't vote about anything for exactly that reason.

In my case the voting thing is silly. I I want to change an election result my time would be better spent persuading others than casting one vote.

The only possible good reason for me or any specific person to vote involves symbolism (except in very tight important races or to send a message in a losing cause). Fair enough. Which is again why people shouldn't brag about their non voting if they are happy with the system. I made an exception for myself because my job is to expose fallacious arguments and I suspected this thread would generate some.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
or to send a message in a losing cause

[/ QUOTE ]

or a winning cause

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Doesn't your position become undefendable if you don't check which elections are close?